Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, like many previous speakers, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord May, on instigating this debate. The only problem with speaking towards the end of it is that his speech was so good that there is not much left of mine with which to weary the House. Given that his speech was followed by that of the noble Lord, Lord May, I have very little to say. My only qualification for taking part in this debate at all is that I introduced the subject of climate change to the House 27 years ago with an Unstarred Question which had the rather mysterious title, "Atmospheric Changes and Weather Patterns". For the historically minded, it can be found in the Official Report for 30 November 1978, at column 1441.
	There is a difficulty for those of us in the political spectrum who are not scientists in trying to approach this problem. I wrote to the head of the Met Office, Dr Mason—whom I did not know—possibly one of the shortest letters that I have written, but I can quote it in full:
	"Dear Sir. I am worried about the weather. Should I be?"
	As a result of that, he took me out to lunch at the Royal Society and showed me the draft of his very important paper, To Nature, which was the first major warning of the problems of CO2 in the atmosphere.
	I asked the question to,
	"discover the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the whole problem of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the subsequent social and economic impact of a sudden and unpredictable change in the world's weather patterns".—[Official Report, 30/11/78; col. 1442.]
	The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who is not in his seat, may recall that he took part in that debate, which happened so long ago. The whole subject of greenhouse gases was met at that time with a mixture of amusement by some noble Lords and bewilderment by others. Today the subject is taken much more seriously, as Kyoto proved; but is it not too late to curtail the causes of greenhouse gases when perhaps we should be preparing to cope with the effects that they create on climate change?
	To discover where we are on climate change at the beginning of the third millennium, it may be worth while to look for a moment at the history of this subject over the past 30 years or so. That would illustrate clearly, in my view, the very difficult relationship between science and politics, which appear to have different agendas operating with differing time frames. The consequences of that disparity have created a serious delay in decision-making by all democratically elected governments of the industrialised world—particularly the United States, where every voter is apparently still led to believe that they have some sort of entitlement to 25 per cent of the world's energy supply, regardless of what may be taking place in the upper atmosphere. It is very difficult for politicians in the United States to double or treble the increase in gasoline prices; in fact, it is impossible.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, mentioned India and China, but there is a big difference here, as India is a democracy and China is not. I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, because I believe that China is going to make a determined effort. What is more, because the Chinese run a directional form of government, to put it politely, there is some chance of it being implemented; whereas in India, and indeed in this country, we have a democratically elected government, and I see very little chance of all the wonderful ideas that have been put forward by noble Lords being properly implemented. The reason for that is, quite simply, the party managers. I do not want to raise the question again but, because of climate change, our grass is growing much later in the year—and I hope to put before your Lordships' House a Bill to make it lighter in the evening, so that we can mow in the evening. But politically that is very difficult to get through, because party managers do not want to see it.
	There is another problem. I have spent the past 27 or 28 years, or whatever it was, working with scientists and engineers outside this Chamber. The things we do all take a minimum of five years or more. Politically, that is too long. No government, on whatever side of the House, can produce a change that will take place beyond five years. That is the problem in a democratic society. I do not know the answer to that. I hope that the Minister will give us some guidance. When I originated the debate so long ago, I suggested that there should be an inter-disciplinary committee to consider the problem, made up of all parts of the House and civil servants, which would be ongoing regardless of government. Such a committee has not been formed, and I wonder myself today whether such a committee should be formed to consider contingency plans for the effect of the failure to contain the greenhouse effect.
	One of the many problems, which has been raised by noble Lords who know about these things, is the possibility of the Gulf Stream disappearing. I shall not go into the technical details, but that would affect Scotland, northern England and northern Europe; and it would affect them very quickly, if the ice core histories are to be read and interpreted correctly. It has happened before in a matter of a decade. That is very similar to the problem of asteroids—another favourite topic of mine, which I have brought before your Lordships' House. "It is unlikely to happen", you say, and "It certainly won't happen on my watch", say the Government; so therefore let us make a glossy pamphlet and get a few consultants in, but let us not actually do anything. That is what has happened with asteroids, and I suspect that it is going to happen again with the greenhouse effect—because to a democratically elected government the voters are more important than the future of mankind.
	Most countries in the industrial world are democracies, I am glad to say. We are trying to sell democracy as a great form of government throughout the world. There are many advantages to it, but one major disadvantage is quite simply that we cannot get long-term decisions made on matters that affect the entire planet. Perhaps we should move to some form of world government on issues of this nature, but it is impossible to do so in the current global political situation.
	I would ask the noble Lord, Lord May, who instigated this debate, why on earth are we having it now? We should have had it at least 10 or 12 years ago. Since the original debate was introduced into the political spectrum—we are the only people who can change the world—nothing has happened. After 12 years Mrs Thatcher called the scientists to Downing Street and used the greenhouse effect as a way of promoting nuclear power. Exactly the same thing has been said today—my goodness me, we must have more nuclear power. What on earth has changed? Nothing. We have got very little further forward. A huge number of international committees have been established and great strides have been taken in the scientific community. However, we in the political sprectrum are still stuck with long-term projects affecting the climate that we are unable to change.
	I shall not detain your Lordships any longer. However, I am rather depressed. I considered for a moment reading the speech that I made 27 years ago. I wondered whether anyone would notice if I read that out today. Perhaps I should have done that. But the fact is that we in the political spectrum have not got very far. We must catch up with the scientists, and we should do so now.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is impossible to sum up a debate which has been running for four hours, with so many knowledgeable and expert speakers, in a matter of 12 minutes. The House owes a considerable debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, for introducing this debate—the second of two very significant debates in this House this autumn. There is a sense in which I wish that this one could have taken place first, but the accidents of House procedure have it this way round.
	It was a particular pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, who achieved a remarkable feat in making a positive speech, having picked his moment with immaculate timing so that it was completely non-controversial. I look forward to hearing more from him in future.
	The best that I can do is to pick up some themes. I quote an article which appeared in the Times two days ago on a report from the International Energy Agency on future investment to meet global energy demand. Mr Claude Mandil, the executive director, said:
	"These projected trends have important implications and lead to a future that is not sustainable . . . We must change these outcomes and get the planet onto a sustainable energy path".
	For those who are still sceptical about whether that is a problem, I am encouraged by the fact that for many years after the linkage between smoking and lung cancer was generally acknowledged, there were those who denied it. But in the end, we have all come to the conclusion that the link was absolutely correct. So it is with global warming.
	The second thing I need to say is a word of hope to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who is concerned whether democratic society can take the necessary decisions in time. He needs to consider that although there will always be tight and intense debate over the means, I do not think that there is any longer any great dissent in political systems over the ends that need to be achieved. In that sense, I have hope for the future. I am sorry that he had to start 30 years ago to hear that in the debate this afternoon, but I hope that he will go away from the debate in a slightly more hopeful position.
	The next theme I wish to pick up is the need for example, which the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, brought up. As a nation, we aspire to lead the world in the political argument about global warming; at least, that is what the Prime Minister has stated. I am all for that. But the old saying, "Don't do as I say, do as I do", applies. Regrettably, we are not performing very well. The Government have made some play of the fact that we expect to meet our Kyoto targets for emissions by 2012, but the reality is that our carbon dioxide emissions have been rising consistently for three years. Although our basket of emissions is still below the target, if carbon dioxide continues to rise in the way that it is rising we stand a modest chance of missing both targets. That means that our ability to lead others in their thinking is damaged.
	The noble Lord, Lord Turner, mentioned the uncertainty aspect of everything that we do. I picked up another item that illustrates that well. It came from the BBC News website:
	"The ocean west of the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed by more than a degree since the 1960s—contradicting the results of computer models".
	That small event has had a big effect, as the article continues:
	"A study published last year showed kill numbers had fallen by 80 per cent since the 1970s and experts linked the collapse to shrinking sea ice".
	Krill are the basis on which marine life lives in that part of the world. The long-term consequences are likely to be devastating. We can see that sort of biological effect across the globe, in different ways in different places.
	On the need to do things, the Times reported that a survey by the Association of British Insurers showed that insurance losses due to weather are rising. Currently, insurance losses due to weather in a normal year are £9 billion. The association expects that to rise three times by 2080. In an extreme year—and extreme years seem to be becoming more usual—losses run at more than £50 billion per year. The association estimates them being between £197 billion and £260 billion by 2080. That is the Association of British Insurers. Imagine what it is like for the global insurance market. One noble Lord mentioned that Hurricane Katrina cost the United States 1.5 per cent of its GDP. So the cost of doing nothing is huge anyway. We also heard from the noble Lord. Lord Turner, that the cost of doing something in the context of GDP is small when you consider that the effect might simply mean that we achieve a slightly lower standard of living than would otherwise be the case. That is a very important way of looking at the issue.
	We need to look at what we can do in this country to improve our circumstances. We have heard a great deal today about emissions from the generating industry. Of course we also have heard that we are introducing, under the renewables obligation and with other forms of persuasion—including carbon trading, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Browne—various forms of green energy into that system. But we have to recognise—and this is the real sting—that our rate of introducing green electricity sources will be less than the rate of depletion that we receive as a result of having to close down our nuclear power stations over the next 15 years, unless we can do a great deal more or make electricity generation more efficient.
	It takes roughly 2.5 kilowatts of power to supply 1 kilowatt of power to the domestic consumer level. Much of that power is vented to the atmosphere as heat. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who is in his place, might pick that up as chairman of the Combined Heat and Power Association, because the efficiency of power generation could be immensely improved if that waste heat were captured and used. That massive change would be well worth achieving. The obstacles to that are, in part, geographical, and so we come back to the complications with the planning system. What will the Government do about the planning system? It puts power stations in remote areas. If we want to combine or improve their efficiency by using the waste heat—and conveying that over long distances can be done, but it is very expensive and reduces the overall gain—perhaps we should put them somewhere near where people live. But then we have the problem of such organisations as SELCHP in south-east London. It was built to heat houses, has been running for 10 years and has not yet warmed one house. That shows a lack of co-ordination somewhere.
	I shall run out of time if I am not careful; I said that this was an impossible task. I have two more points to mention. First, we need to do something about giving ordinary people the power to use microgeneration from either winds or photoelectrics. I pulled a note off the Internet this morning by a person who has moved to France. He states:
	"I have a small wind turbine, 3 PV solar panels producing my own electricity . . . My argument is that even if you can reduce your energy impact by 50%—think how that would make a difference on a large scale".
	That is less than the cost of a small car. That person went to France partly because the regulatory process here makes doing these things difficult. That is something else we need to look at. Tidal energy was mentioned. Ultimately that is just large hydroelectric power, but a matter we need to look at. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, got on to the question of the alternative energy carrier of hydrogen, which we will have to develop over time. He will be interested to hear that the first hydrogen-powered plane flew in July. It was what I think that the Americans call an unmanned air reconnaissance vehicle, but they expect that, when fully developed, it will be able to stay up for a week. We need some fairly intensive work to translate that technology to civil aviation.
	There is no more time; I have been long enough. I have not said much that I want to say, but this has been a remarkable debate and I very much look forward to the Minister's reply.